'Run for Something' Is Stronger Than Ever. We're Going to Need It.

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:57 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1,130. I'm your host, Thomas Smith. Excited, in Thomas Takes the Bar Exam fun practice bar exam question that along with, we've got Amanda Littman from Run for Something. I'm pretty sure everybody knows what Run for Something is, but if you don't, you're going to learn about it. It's great. It is exactly what we need right now. It was what we needed in 2017 after the first Trump election, and it's what we needs right now, probably even even more so than then. I'm really excited for y 'all to hear that. A moment, I'll be jumping on with Matt and Amanda Littman. Then of course we'll have Heather for Thomas takes the bar exam. We get going, I want to remind folks that you might be able to join the Q &As. You might also be in the Q&A. You might not be in a time to join. You might join the patron hangout where we do a Q&A. Today for me, Wednesday, the 26th at 3 p.m. Pacific, 6 p.m. Eastern. Can also go and check out the question thread on Patreon and ask a question. So even if you can't make it to the hangout, you can still possibly have your question answered. So super fun. Last time was a big hit and I'm excited to do it again. Right. We'll take our usual little break, which you can avoid also at patreon.com/law. and then we'll get over to Amanda Littman with Run for Something.

0:02:12 Thomas: Show is brought to you by Rocket Money. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Those are all things that I would be wanting to do right now. They sound like good ideas. And Rocket Money, is here to help. Can see all your subscriptions in one place and know exactly where your money is going. Now, it may be horrifying at first to where all that money is going, because I, for one, was astonished at the number of subscriptions I have and the number that I don't need. Some of them you need. That's great. Awesome. Of whom you forgot about. Whom you actually are paying for twice, two different ways. Look, I hope that's not just be. Rocket Money helps you get it all sorted out. When you find those ones you don't want anymore, Rocket Money actually helps you cancel them. Amazing. Another thing Rocket Money will do. They will try to negotiate lower bills for you. Didn't know you could even do that. They'll scan your bills automatically to find opportunities to save, and then you can ask them to negotiate for you and they'll deal with customer service so you don't have to, which as a millennial, I very, much appreciate. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions. Members up to $740 a year when using all of the app's premium features. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. To rocketmoney.com/opening today. rocketmoney.com/opening. One more time, rocketmoney.com/opening So

0:03:39 Thomas: We are joined by Amanda Littman of Run for Something. How are you doing today?

0:03:43 Amanda: Doing well. How are you all doing?

0:03:45 Thomas: Good. You know, lots going on, as I'm sure you know. What's it like being you lately? How's it been ever since November? How has it been feeling?

0:03:47 Matt: We're making it. We're Making It. Yeah

0:03:56 Amanda: A good question. So I was on maternity leave during the election. I just had my second daughter in the end of September.

0:04:06 Thomas: Congratulations.

0:04:07 Amanda: You. Is actually a really great way to spend election night because, you is crying, spit up all over me.

0:04:15 Thomas: The infant had to be like, all right, everyone, can you, you know, let's get stoic here.

0:04:17 Amanda: Can we can we settle down a little bit yeah you was the only one that shit her pants but like otherwise we were all just peak

0:04:25 Thomas: Yeah, if you don't count metaphorically, yeah, sure.

0:04:26 Amanda: Peak performance um I would say that I am actually feeling really energized which is a weird thing to be feeling right now but I'm very lucky that the work that run for something does is so um suited like we were built for this and so So it's good to feel like we have a purpose.

0:04:43 Thomas: Well, I guess Yeah, literally, right?

0:04:45 Amanda: Mm-hmm.

0:04:45 Thomas: Do you want to talk about the history and not only run something, for but maybe kind of your background with that?

0:04:49 Amanda: So I'm a campaign hack. Originally, I got my start working for Obama's reelect back in college in 2012 in Chicago, online fundraising, volunteer recruitment, that kind of thing. Worked for his nonprofit for a year after we won. Moved down to Florida to work on the governor's race in 2014. Lost that, but got to go to Disney World. So I'll take it. Then ended up in New York working for Secretary Clinton's campaign for two years. Lost, you may recall.

0:05:15 Amanda: About a week after election day, I started hearing from friends I'd gone to high school and college with, hey, Amanda, you're the only person I know that works in politics. If I want to run for office, what do I do? At the time, there was nowhere you could go if you were a young person who wanted to do more than vote and more than volunteer. So I reached out to a whole bunch of people with an idea. What if we created an organization to solve this problem? And with my co -founder, we launched Run for Something on Trump's first inauguration day. And we thought it would be really small. We thought we'd get maybe a hundred people who would just sign up in the first year. Had a thousand people in the first week and since then built what we believe is the biggest candidate pipeline on the left of young people thinking about running for state and local office. Our political organization has endorsed more than 3,000. We've helped elect just about 1,500. Nearly every state folks, folks under 40, mostly women and people of color. Which brings me to this moment because in the days after the 2024 election we've had in the two weeks since we had 10 ,000 people raise their hands and as of now we're up to almost 20 ,000 most of whom have signed up in fact just since inauguration these are people that want to run for school boards city council state ledge they're not waiting around for someone to like tap them on the shoulder so this is you know we build it for moments like this when there is an interest in running we are here to help them figure it out

0:06:37 Matt: Wanted to ask about election night. We must have had some wins on election night we didn't hear about. I wondered if you wanted to share any from your organization.

0:06:43 Amanda: So run for something actually had a pretty good election night um we had about half our candidates a little more than half of our candidates won that includes flipping state house and state senate seats in iowa kentucky arizona york we elected people to who made history we looked at the first one of the first trans people ever to win office in the state of kentucky emma curtis you want to see on the the Lexington City County Council, you number of really amazing young leaders who just won office, as well as electing some incredible young people to Congress. Know, Jasmine Crockett obviously won re -election, Sarah McBride, who came through the Run for Something pipeline, Suhas Subranayam from Virginia, and a number of others. It's been very cool to see this work really pay off in a meaningful way.

0:07:25 Matt: Yeah, I'd love to hear about that because, you know, we've been focused so much on the federal government and on federal politics. And I think one of the reasons we really want to talk to you is because that's not necessarily where the fight is going to be right now. Is that right? Is that the right way to see it?

0:07:39 Amanda: Think absolutely, you know, right now, the only place we are going to be able to have power to mitigate harm is in the States and locally. And the only place we're going to be able to have really good stuff happen, which like I really try to hold onto because good stuff can still happen is the States and local. Actually, I'll give you a really good example here. Just earlier this month in February, the Cambridge city council passed a comprehensive rezoning policy to make it easier for people to build more homes. Of the most comprehensive and most expansive rezoning efforts efforts of any city in the country in decades, in a moment when there's an extreme housing crisis. And they did so led by a Run for Something alum, Burhan Azim, supported by two other members on the city council that Run for something worked with. That's going to make a real meaningful difference for the people both in Cambridge and outside of it, because it has, you know, like downstream effects. As you build more housing, housing gets cheaper, which is a really cool way to make life better for tens of thousands, if not more people. Think that's worth celebrating even when everything feels so shitty.

0:08:41 Matt: Absolutely is. A Boston resident. I mean, I know what housing is like right now, but that's incredible. Incredible.

0:08:44 Amanda: Anybody

0:08:45 Thomas: Yeah talk about the um actual mechanics because I I know you know I I am in that probably like millennial key demographic of people who felt this exact thing when trump won the first time and we're like what do we do and I know a bunch of you people like me and my friends were like oh run for something that but that still can't be like you know you or I right like we still all have that feeling but you know mission and also what resources sources do you provide like what what does it do to sign up for run for something can truly anybody sign up wow

0:09:15 Amanda: Can sign up. Here's the thing about being a politician. It's not something you're born. It's kind of like being a writer or an artist or like someone who plays the piano. You know, the way you become a politician or a writer, or an artist is by doing the thing you become it by putting your name on the ballot. And I think that's actually really empowering because it means that literally anyone for better or for or worse, as we have seen, can do this. If you sign up with us, we will help you figure out what office to run for, how to write a campaign plan, how-to-know-when-it's-your-time, really how to make the decisions leading up to running, both logistically and sort of psychologically. We'll connect you with folks who have done it before in your area who can help you. We will connect you to partners who do trainings, both in -person and online. We'll connect you to vendors who can support you as you stand up your campaign. Once you actually run, you can apply for our endorsement, which gets even more help, one-on-one coaching and expertise from our team. In some places, we can get you volunteers, we can connect you to folks who can get your money, and we stick with you all the way through past election day. So win or lose, run for something is on your side. I think, is a real soup to nuts effort, knowing that sometimes you have to run and lose in order to eventually run and win, and that the outcome of the on election day just one way to measure the impact you can have on your community.

0:10:31 Thomas: So with the endorsement I mean is there like a platform positions that folks need to take at a minimum to kind of get that endorsement

0:10:38 Amanda: You know, we have a really broad way of understanding our endorsement platform. We think about it in terms of values. So you need to be pro -working families, pro -affordable health care, pro reducing gun violence, pro climate change is real. And we have a responsibility to do something about it, -choice, pro equality, pro tolerance, pro voting rights. But we know that that looks really different, both depending on where you are in the country and what office you're running for. So, you know, a city council candidate here in New York, where I live, is going to be talking about gun violence very differently than a school board candidate in Kansas or a state legislative candidate in Alaska. Of them will be fighting to reduce gun violence, but we'll use different levers and sort of different approaches to do so. So I that's how we can really build a big party that can win everywhere, is by focusing on values, not on policies.

0:11:22 Matt: I know we have a lot of really engaged, smart, committed listeners. And I've been saying for months that we should be encouraging anybody to run who's interested in any of this. And I think that the number one thing I have to assume that anybody who's thinking about doing anything like this is going to be thinking is, how can I afford this? How possibly take time out of my life and run for something? What's the best answer for that?

0:11:42 Amanda: Think that's the sort of misconception. You know, think about school board races, for example. 75% of school board races cost $1,000 or less. 85% cost $5,000. You know average budget of a run for something candidate's race is about $10,000, which is not nothing, but it's also not being self -funded. It's people asking others to themselves to their community, to do something really meaningful, to make where you live a better place. And a lot of the candidates we work with are wildly outspent, but they are not outworked. So I will say that's the one thing that's very true about candidates. It is very hard. It requires a lot of work, but it is not complicated work. It is just like hard work, if you know what I mean. Mm

0:12:21 Thomas: Interesting people

0:12:24 Matt: Mentioned school boards, which I think is, it seems like one of the big fights right now throughout the the country. And there's a lot of opposition. There's a very solid, hardcore right -wing movement trying to take over school boards. We seeing a lot of resistance to that around the country?

0:12:35 Amanda: We are you know run for something's worked with hundreds of school boards over the years and in fact in 2023 um were really particularly tracking our our candidates against moms for liberty folks moms for liberty candidates had like a 30 percent win rate run for something school board candidates had a 72 percent win rate um their policies I think this is true you know across the republican party what they're doing is not popular so when we run run against them. Basically, anytime it's someone that isn't Trump, we can win. Most Republicans don't have his brand. They don't have like 45 years in the public eye. They don't know, like the TV show, they don't. The whatever makes them special is have really seen that on the state and local level, the extremism does not not fly.

0:12:53 Matt: That's awesome.

0:13:22 Thomas: Sure do seem to want their fascism delivered with a bit of charm you know they just want a little a little little bit of, yeah, a little, little joke, little nod, little, that kind of thing.

0:13:26 Amanda: You know, you want a little pizzazz.

0:13:31 Matt: Show. Moms for a Little Bit of Liberty just seems very, very loud. That seems to be what they do the best, just showing up and yelling.

0:13:35 Amanda: Are. People don't like yelling. Kind of hurts your ears.

0:13:40 Thomas: What So, what goes into that decision? If one of the listeners were to sign up right now, like, you decide where to run? Like, how's that decision made usually?

0:13:41 Matt: And your soul.

0:13:52 Amanda: Really encourage people who are thinking about running to be able to answer three specific questions. The first is what is the problem you care about solving? The second is how you might want to run for give you power to solve it? And third, why should voters want you to win? That's like the three top questions that you're going to get over and over again, which is why are you running and why should I care? If you can answer those questions, everything else is logistics. So we can help you figure this out. Like when is the filing deadline? Is the office you're running for actually the right fit for you? What are the political circumstances? Much money does it cost? Is it paid? How much time would it require? Like of that, not easy, but logistics, which is doable. I the biggest thing that we have found is that it does often take people a little while to get in the right space, like psychologically, mentally, personally. And so it's worth putting some thought in now, if this is something you might want to do in the next couple of years, it is never too early to get started doing the planning process.

0:14:51 Matt: I think another misconception that I might have had before I got to know, actually someone who worked closely, I think, with Run for Something, our friend of the show and my good friend, Megan Coleman in Rhode Island, Senator from Pawtucket, I had the impression that you generally should be a lawyer or familiar with laws or have worked in politics before to run for something. And it just, it seems like your organization especially has been very good about encouraging people that don't have that kind of experience.

0:15:14 Amanda: If anything, I think it's really important we get less lawyers in office. Can You always hire lawyers.

0:15:18 Matt: Yeah, I'm with you.

0:15:18 Thomas: Thank you. Down with lawyers. This is a law show, and we are firmly with that message.

0:15:24 Amanda: Think it's like, you can always hire more lawyers. They're everywhere. But I think it's important to get more artists, more teachers, more nurses, more scientists, more doctors, more people who've worked retail, people who have worked fashion, musicians. We need all kinds of backgrounds and experiences because I it's not cool to say this, but people bring their lived experiences with them into office. The things that they prioritize are the things that directly affect their lives. Why you get a lot of old people who run and win and then talk a lot about social security. Is really important to have folks who come from all different walks of life in these spaces because it makes them better at their jobs.

0:15:47 Matt: That's true. Sure. And so what would you, I guess I'm just, I mean, I don't know if you've ever heard I think a lot of people might be as you're hearing this, if somebody comes to you and their only experience is maybe being an assistant manager at a restaurant or running a retail shop or something.

0:16:11 Thomas: Like being a podcaster, man. I don't know. It's just something stupid, you know? Just like, no, just kidding.

0:16:14 Matt: I mean, important work that they've been working very hard, but maybe it doesn't necessarily translate to going to a state house or a school board. Mean... Or maybe it does. I'm looking at this as a lawyer, of course, so what do I know? With just no professional or political experience and sort of help them orient on how they can get started in a campaign?

0:16:32 Amanda: I think the thing to keep in mind is the that you have to know the most about is what your voters care about. You can learn that by knocking doors, talking to voters. You really hear the problems that are on their mind, you can seek out help to learn how to solve them. You don't have to have all of the solutions up front. It's useful if there's a couple things that you really know a ton about, like whether it's you really care about housing or childcare or book bands, whatever it might be. Knowing the one or two things where you can go deep, everything else you can learn. And in fact, it's better if you learn because you can really come at it from a way of how do you want to best solve the problem that the voters want to get solved, as opposed to how do you want to solve the problem that you think should be solved. Think it makes you better if you're coming in a little bit more of a, if not blank slate, like a curious, excited to be educated slate.

0:17:18 Matt: Yeah, totally. And what about when you get to the job? Someone kind of learn on the job or start to get going? I think that just seems intimidating to me, honestly, just thinking about stepping into office.

0:17:26 Amanda: It hard. I don't want to underrate that. But there's a lot of organizations that exist to support you, as well as folks who have ran and won before. We have a really cool alumni community of more than 3 ,000 people who've run, again, nearly half of whom have won and love to tell what they've learned and love to sort of coach new folks coming up through the ranks. And there's also great organizations like Local Progress or State Innovation Exchange that really are there to support local electeds and state legislators to figure out how to actually do the job they've been elected to do.

0:17:57 Thomas: Got a question. Lot As of the spirit of this, which I think is great, is local politics and not being so focused on national. But I'm curious, do of messaging, it still feels like the attention is so much on the national, that even these races that have nothing to do with the federal government, these small races, it's still seems like the campaigning is largely about national issues. Do you find to be true? Or is that something that people able to kind of break through and focus on the local successfully? Successfully.

0:18:26 Amanda: Think the really effective candidates can localize their campaigns pretty well. It that they're able to, in many places, meet every voter. They're knocking doors, they're showing up at community events, they're putting a face to the name. It's really easy to hate on the candidate you just see on TV. It's much harder to hate the candidate who knocked on your door, came inside, sat at your kitchen table, drank a cup of coffee, talked to you about traffic for 45 minutes. Think that really helps keep it personal and engaged engaged and brings attention to it. Definitely gotten a little trickier over the last couple of years, but I also say, I think the run for something candidates in particular are really good. Generally speaking at social media, you know, we've seen this over and over again. They, 20 and 30 somethings. They've grown up online. It doesn't need to be like staffed out or coached. They they know how to use this. So they do. And really really helps their campaigns be stronger and more effective at reaching people.

0:19:18 Thomas: The same time, there's such a energy against Trump. Is it still like, is it still advisable to be like, you that kind of resistance feeling or is it, is het still better to just focus on local community stuff?

0:19:31 Amanda: It depends on where you are and what kind of race you're running in. I would say, generally speaking, voters really want you to solve problems. So if the problem you are able to solve is something concrete for them, something really tangible and deliverable, that's appreciated and will often get people more excited than just stopping Trump, especially in this moment where he feels kind of unstoppable. Even though that's not true, I think he's absolutely stoppable, but it can feel really abstract to make that case, Whereas in these local races, talking about something really localized and close to home can make it just more, you

0:20:04 Matt: Really encouraging to hear that you said 20 ,000 people since Election Day. Do you have a sense of where those people are coming from? Is there sort of a regional or state going on here? Is it all over the place?

0:20:13 Amanda: 50 states, when we last matched it against the voter file, it was a little bit more women than men, but not entirely. % were under the age of 40. we found that about 20 % of the people who sign up with us end up filing for endorsement within a month. % end up filing within 18 months. But the median amount of time that someone spends between between signing up and actually filing for endorsement is a little under a year. So lots of people signing up now means lots of people running in 2025 or 2026. Excuse me. Next year is 2026, which is good because I think, you is one of the things I've started really trying to hammer home for people. We got to mentally, and it feels hard to say this right now, but like we got to mentally prepare for 2026 to be a landslide election for Democrats. That sink. Like, we got to mentally prepare for it. I know, like, we feel like losers right now, but that is not what's going to happen next year. You know, think back to the 2018 midterms where we flipped House seats, we couldn't flip governorships, we won 350 plus state leg seats. And that started with work that we did in, like around this time in 2017. work that We Do Now in 2025 and every election between now and 2026 is a chance to prove to that the Republicans in Congress that their bullshit has electoral consequences. And it's a chance to practice winning. In 2026, yes, we need to flip the house. Yes, we need win back as much of the Senate as we can. It's a tough map. And the governors and secretaries of state and the state legislators will have a lot to do with how we administer the 2028 election. They'll have a lots to do how we do the 2030 census. The local electeds will actually be administering the 2038 election. This all builds on itself. So every office that we can and win in 2026. We got to fight for, and that means we got to run for. That's what the recruitment we're doing right now is all about.

0:22:04 Matt: This is so encouraging, and it's exactly what we wanted to talk about here. And I just, I love hearing this, because I think that there is a perception right now, and I don't, I think this is somewhat accurate, but the general perception is that at the national level, the Democratic Party is a gerontocracy, that we have a very elderly, you of leaders, and not, that that they're not stepping aside but if you're talking about that this massive wave of people coming that that sounds very encouraging and is that an accurate perception first of all just

0:22:27 Amanda: Oh, I absolutely think the Democratic Party is a gerontocracy. I think that's about a, that's to end. I think we're starting to see it, um, the crumbling, uh, so to speak. You know, we've just seen at least two slightly older senators from Michigan and Minnesota have said this will be their last term. Think we're going to see more of that. Hope we're gonna see more of that because in a lot of these states, and give you a really concrete example here, there are 55 members of the U.S. House and the Democratic Caucus who are over the age of 70, run for something alone, has helped elect young diverse leaders to state and local office. These are experienced politicians who know how to govern, who've been in office for at least a couple of years in all but two of their districts. Means that if those 70-year-olds, which I hope they will, decide to make this their last term, there's incredible benches of talent everywhere to start to fill the gaps.

0:23:12 Matt: Awesome that's so good to hear is there anybody you want to shout out or something we might not have heard of that you're proud to have worked with I

0:23:26 Amanda: There are so many. I'm really pumped for Mallory McMorrow in Michigan. I know a lot of people have heard of her, but she's a state senator who's making waves and I think has a really bright future ahead of her. Anna Eskamani is a state rep down in Florida who won around Orlando. She continually wins in districts Trump also wins. She's now running for mayor of Orlando. Uh, she's amazing. Lena Hidalgo, who's the County executive in Harris County, Texas, the Harris County judge is what the position is called. Who's done amazing work to really push back, um, on so much of the bullshit that, uh, Texas Republicans have thrown at her. Megan Hunt, who is a State Senator in Nebraska, who's now independent, but has been an incredible fighter against some of the bullshit there. Kayla Young is a state legislator in West Virginia, one of the few Democrats in the West Virginia state legislature, who last year really gummed up the works against some anti -trans legislation in a way that stopped it in its tracks. Love to see that.

0:24:17 Amanda: Bluin, who's in Utah, Salt Lake City, state legislater, really exciting young fighter for climate. Could go on and on. On. There's just, there's really like exciting young folks in office that I've like, if we get to, I feel like I've been saying this for almost eight years now. Like, I think if we like get to 2028, the work that run for something has been doing over the last, at that point, it'll be 10 years. We'll pay off tenfold in this incredible crop of national leaders that will just like knock your socks off and we'll make you excited to be a Democrat and excited to engage in politics again?

0:24:17 Matt: Remember that yeah

0:24:26 Thomas: I believe you.

0:24:51 Matt: Is so cool and I want to point out we did not give you these questions in advance the way you just rattled those names off. That was impressive.

0:24:58 Thomas: The gerontocracy obviously is real and so many people have a problem with it and I get it. And though, is that like, they're not going to step aside. Maybe some of them are, but I feel like waiting for them to step beside is maybe not as productive as what you are doing, which is just run, just take it from them. You know, and so what for something do someone wants to primary a Democrat? Like, is that something that, go? You Or does it need to be like, you Know, against a Republican or an open seat or something?

0:25:23 Amanda: We absolutely work in primaries against incumbent Democrats. You know, we only work on the state and local levels. It's a little bit different than members of Congress. We're really here about the stuff. We absolutely worked against incumbent Democrats. And one of my favorite things over the last couple of years has been almost every time we endorse against an incumbent Democrat, sometimes we get people calling us and be like, how dare you? And to them, I'm like, if he's doing, if it's usually he, if If he's doing a good job, I know what you're worried about. Like, only be mad if you think he's not living up to his promises to his voters. But more often, we get folks, especially, like, party leaders and others will call us and be like, I can't say this publicly. Like, don't hold me to it. But that dude sucks, and I'm so glad you're challenging him. Great, thrilled, happy to be here.

0:26:02 Thomas: Awesome. Very exciting.

0:26:06 Matt: Yeah, that is such a problem in Massachusetts where we are, of course, or everybody's a Democrat and most races are unopposed and most people don't want to step up and take on the person who's been around a long time even if they do suck and everybody quietly knows it. That kind of energy is just what we need certainly in the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

0:26:21 Amanda: Love that.

0:26:22 Thomas: Want to know, should people be worried? Has changed? If people are worried, oh, I want to run for something, but hey, social media, and I'm sure I posted a bunch of pictures of me partying in college or something, you know, like, does any of that crap matter anymore? Or is it just not as important these days? That's refreshing.

0:26:35 Amanda: As important. Important um if you like can explain it um know there's certainly unfortunately higher standards for Democrats and there are for Republicans Republicans can just like be Nazis on the internet and it doesn't seem to matter um I think that's actually not totally true either we've seen this like with mark robinson down in north carolina there's some shit you still can't really get away with but like if you um of yourself playing beer pong or like, you at one point or have student loan debt or like had a messy divorce, you Know, all of that stuff. I think if you're honest with voters, they will forgive a lot. They really don't like being lied to. I And think that's the big thing we really encourage candidates is to be on the level with people. If you're asking them to give you power to make decisions about their health care, their finances, and your really personal things, you should be upfront with them about who you are.

0:27:22 Thomas: It's such a paradox because I feel like authenticity is really the thing that everyone is craving. And somehow people think Trump is that, which is the opposite of that. But he also, and know better, let me know what you think. But I feel like it's just the fact that people have associated politicians for so long with inauthenticity that his being so different, I think it comes across refreshing or saying things that like, you know, other politicians wouldn't say came across as authentic maybe in a way. And I guess there is a certain authenticity to him in that way. But I mean, he's a billionaire. He's not he's not you or I. And somehow he's like the working people's hero. But like, does that seem to be, it's just people want to feel like you're really you. And it almost feels like kind of no matter what skeletons that might be, if you're owning it and you're honest about it and your authentic, like it kind of, of you trumps everything else.

0:28:09 Amanda: That's right. I think people want to know you're upfront. And like, that's maybe the thing that makes Trump authentic, so to speak, is like, you he says is insane, but that's because he's literally insane. Like, it's just it's pure. It's pure bullshit coming out of his mouth. But it is the purest bullshit that I think he genuinely believes like, and this is what you know, sort of my general advice to candidates is like people want want responsible authenticity they want authenticity that like they can handle they want authenticity like it's not an overshare they don't want like their boomer great aunt like telling you about their IBS they want you to like be yourself in a way that makes them feel safe and trusted and like they kan count on you to do what you say that's really the key more than anything else

0:28:28 Thomas: That's fair. Yeah, it is. It's a good point. When he says he wants to build a moat and fill it with sharks or whatever, I do believe that that's what he wants to do. Like, I think you're right. That's a good way to put it.

0:29:01 Amanda: Remember

0:29:02 Matt: Doubt. How is Run for Something funded?

0:29:05 Amanda: Something is funded by uh like hopefully some of your listeners We are funded by individuals giving whatever they can. Over the years, that's ranged from people giving a dollar a month to millions of dollars. But I'm very grateful for every single one because this work is so hard and it's so not sexy and it has been really difficult over the years to get people excited about it financially. So any person who is willing to invest in it, I am grateful for.

0:29:31 Matt: Know there are going to be a lot of people who are as encouraged as I am just hearing what you've had to say today, and we're going to make sure to promote that. I hope that people will give.

0:29:38 Amanda: You. Me too.

0:29:38 Thomas: Yeah. What should people do? I mean, where should they go? Know maybe they don't necessarily want to run for something something but they can still support the organization tell them where to go fantastic

0:29:46 Amanda: Can go to runforsomething .net. You can learn more about how to give, how to help. You can sign up to be a volunteer with us or help our candidates. And of course, you can learn More About Running for Office. There's lots of materials we've got on there about how to get started.

0:29:59 Thomas: Really exciting anything so much for your time we really appreciate you and uh it's very encouraging stuff excellent

0:30:00 Matt: Awesome. The most encouraging conversation we've had in a long time. Thank you.

0:30:07 Amanda: Happy to be hopeful.

0:30:12 Thomas: Show is brought to you by HelloFresh. What is HelloFresh, you ask? Well, with HelloFresh, you get farm fresh, pre-portioned ingredients and seasonal recipes delivered right to your door. Those trips to the grocery store. Hey, more than that, skip those expensive deliveries from the grocery store, because those add up. Skip all that and count on HelloFresh to make home cooking fun, and affordable. That's why it's America's number one meal kit. It before, I'll say it again. We could not live without meal kits. Are the best. HelloFresh ensures that we are eating a nice home-cooked meal without all the work that we just don't have time for that comes with that. The planning, the grocery shopping, the, Forget you all that. And forget trying to figure out what's going to do. How do you plan that far ahead? I don't know how anyone does it. You're anything like me, HelloFresh, it's so nice to have all of that done and done better than I would do it because they've got really interesting meals. Change it up. There's There's so much to choose from. Then they'll deliver you all the ingredients, exactly what you need. And they're fresh. Cash, you're They also have these over a hundred ad -on items that you can add to your weekly box now, like quick breakfast, packable snacks, beverages, and more. Mean, honestly, they've got food covered for us now. Couldn't live without it. I I don't don't, think you should either. Up to 10 free meals and a free high-protein item for life at HelloFresh.com/HelloFreshPodcast. item per box with active subscription. Free meals applied as discounts on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. That's up to ten free HelloFresh meals. Just go to HelloFresh.com/HelloFreshPodcast. Seriously, try it out. You'll see why they are America's number one meal kit.

0:31:44 Clip: I just know, that you are gonna kick that bar's butt, out of here, you know, No.

0:31:49 Thomas: Heather, how are you doing today?

0:31:51 Heather: Am doing great. I have bought no forged paintings in the last week.

0:31:55 Thomas: Missing out there. More forgeries for me.

0:31:58 Heather: I heard that you were a forgery enthusiast.

0:31:59 Thomas: Yeah. I really, I can't get over that funny detail in this question. Like he, he sold it for 500, but only because it was like, who's spending 500 on a forger. All right. It must be good. I mean, I guess there's some amount you'd spend on like a replica of a painting, I suppose, but it must be a really good forgery maybe it is like how much for this painting yeah uh all right well that I am dying to know what's going on here remind us what this question was or

0:32:15 Heather: He was at the flea market and he was just next to somebody and this about our friends ben and sabrina and they got into an agreement where ben said that he would buy what he thought was an original georgia o 'keefe for three million dollars only to later discover that it was a forgery so he decided that he would sue sabrina for three million damages they had also agreed for ben to buy a california beachfront property from sabrina for million. Soon as he found found out that it was a forgery and he that was going to sue her in damages. Sabrina decided to back out of the real estate sale. When Ben decided to file suit against Sabrina.

0:32:58 Thomas: Worried he's gonna find out it's a forged house it's actually just a painting of a house it's not even crap

0:33:06 Heather: He sued her for fraud as to the painting and was seeking $3 million in damages, and then he claimed breach of contract as to The Home and sought specific performance. Then he demands a jury trial on both of those issues. And we're trying to figure out whether or not Ben is entitled to a jury trail. So A, yes, as to both the fraud claim and the breach of contract claim. B, yes as to the fraud Claim, but no as to breach of contract Claim. As to the fraud claim, but yes as to the breach of contract claim, or D, no as to both the fraud claim and the breach -of -contract claim. You correctly identified this as a civil procedure question. Great job. And you actually correctly identified this also as a jury trial question. You got that right, but but it was a different amendment than the one that we had decided before for the criminal procedure question. Question. The criminal procedure question that you were referencing dealt with the Sixth Amendment, and this actually deals with the Seventh. You were having tinglings because they were close to each other. So we'll cover Seventh Amendment jury trials so we can hopefully clear this up a little bit as we go through. Generally, the Seventh Amendment grants the right to a jury trial in all civil actions at law when the amount in controversy is more than $20.

0:33:44 Thomas: So far sure oh

0:34:24 Heather: Yeah. And you're like, that is, yeah.

0:34:24 Thomas: And so it's the specific performance that's the ah right I should have thought of that right

0:34:29 Heather: So I can always walk and I'll walk through the way that I work through these questions. I break it down into three parts. First we'll, we'll start with the hardest part and then we'll get to the easiest part. First we also are trying to figure out what is this thing that's a civil action at law? What does that mean? Kind of hit the nail on the head because what we're looking at is civil actions at law versus those at equity. Version of a long story, a of our legal system is based on the legal system, the common law system in England, which used to have separate courts, which were separate courts in law and equity. Don't have those, we have all, but we've remained, this distinction has remained in the Seventh Amendment and that matters, right? You hit the nail on the head. So tell me what your instinct is as it relates to the specific performance. Me what you think that that matters as it leads to this.

0:35:11 Thomas: When it comes to yeah. Okay, I definitely should have gotten there. Now that I look about it, it is the specific performance and a dollar amount. And I started to reference that. And then I think I just lost track of it. But now what is specific performance worth though? That's what my question would would be, because you thoughts are going to be now that I'm actually looking at the right answer it about trying to assign any sort of dollar value to it? Or is it rather that like when you're looking for something like specific performance, you're never really going to be talking about a dollar amount, it's a different category of thing. And so therefore you wouldn't be entitled to a jury trial. Say that I know what the Constitution says in any meaningful way. Do think that when you're looking at the purpose of a jury trial, which is to decide the facts, essentially, I don'T really see why there would be a difference between whether you're seeking special performance or whether you'RE seeking damages. Like me, that's almost the thing I mean I guess punitive damages would be like a classic jury thing to determine but all the all the facts in question are going to be the same it seems to me um of those two things and that having a jury trial for one but not another seems kind of weird but I could also see that if the letter of the law is just like is based on dollar amount then specific performance um you could argue there's a you know it is about a 10 million dollar house so it's about yes you have to sell me that house there is an argument that that's that kind of money is at stake in a certain way, but it's also, if you're assuming the two things are equal, like the money he is giving her and the house that she's giving him, then it's sort of like not worth anything. Like that's not really, you don't, so like I could, I can see an argument either way. I could see an argument for, as I said, just logically speaking, I don't know why this shouldn't be a jury trial, but in terms of like that specific text or whatever, the black letter law is going to be on that. I Could see specific just not being a dollar amount thing.

0:37:00 Heather: And you would be right. Because specific performance is considered remedy. It is the kind of remedy that the court gives like an injunction, like a temporary restraining order. Way is that which a party must prove that a legal remedy is inadequate. Essentially, you can't be made whole or remedied by legal remedies. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

0:37:24 Heather: I'm looking at those, I'm thinking about what are the remedies. Legal remedies often are compensatory in nature, like what you were talking about. Legal revenues are often their money. So like you were saying, we're looking at punitive damages. We're looking at like the question we had last week about the cake shop owner and the painter, right? Best way to compensate is just their money, right. And so when we don't have money, then we have this other category, right, these equitable remedies, which money isn't going to do it. And specific performance falls under that category. Anytime you get fact patterns like this, when there are some of these, which are around property, a common remedy is specific performance. And what that really means is forcing the sale of the home. So even though the home is worth $10 million, we tend to think homes and property are, oh, just so special. They're this American special thing that we love our property, right? And the only way that you can really remedy something like the sale of a home or piece of property is to force the sale. Although the home is worth 10 million, that doesn't really matter as much as the sale itself.

0:38:25 Heather: And we're going to go ahead and force that sale, which makes it an equitable remedy. To answer your other question about why does it really matter, right, of the reason it matters is it's this really old holdover from English common common law, when there used to be separate courts at law and separate courts at equity.

0:38:39 Thomas: I don't think I asked why it mattered, but sure.

0:38:42 Heather: So what you're kind of talking about a little bit, and I felt like the best way to answer that question was just to say it's just this old holdover.

0:38:49 Thomas: It's like an old holdover that these are different categories of thing.

0:38:52 Heather: Exactly. And even though we don't have separate courts anymore, the distinction remains within the Seventh Amendment. Does that help a littlebit?

0:38:59 Thomas: Yeah. No, it makes sense. I think I identified all the issues. I just don't know exactly what the text is going to tell us to do. And yeah, it sounds like you're telling us it's a separate thing.

0:39:09 Heather: That's exactly it. That's our first step, is trying trying to look at what is the action at law versus the action at equity if we have two separate actions. And so we've identified that the specific performance, right, our breach of contract claim, since he's seeking specific performance as his remedy, we can see that that's an equitable remedy, right? When we're looking, it's telling us, the Seventh Amendment's telling we have a right to a jury trial in civil actions at law. We know right away that the one at equity, right? His breach of contract claim as to the home, he doesn't have a right to that, he will have one, again, at law. And so when we're looking at the fraud as to the painting, right, where he's saying 3 million in damages, we can intuit, or it seems very obvious, hopefully, that that means that he will Have a right to that if he meets some of the other requirements. That brings us to our next step. He has to meet an amount in controversy for that action at law, it's pretty simple. The amount controversy has to be more than $20. So we ask

0:40:04 Heather: Ourselves, yeah.

0:40:04 Thomas: Going to say, yeah, odds that it's more than 3 million, I think, are low. So, hmm,

0:40:09 Heather: He does meet that, right? The amount in controversy, $3 million more than that, so he passes that next hurdle. And the very last hurdle is that there always has to a demand for a jury trial. You don't automatically get a jury trial. Um, you have to make that demand. And he does it. The last sentence before I call the the question is that he demands one. So we all the boxes for our fraud as to the painting. You eliminated two answers right away. And remind me which ones you eliminated and

0:40:36 Thomas: Just C and D because I was pretty certain that the fraud one would be a jury trial. I'm glad I at least got that right.

0:40:42 Heather: Absolutely. Yeah, you were spot on with those ones. And so now we know that the breach of contract claim is out, he does not have the right to a jury trial for the breach of contract claim. Unfortunately, that means that A is incorrect.

0:40:56 Thomas: Darn, I was hoping there'd still be something in there procedure -wise about kind of consolidating the actions, but sounds like no. All right, well, shoot. That's a tough one. I feel good about that. I think that I tried to go with, in absence of actual knowledge, I tried try to go with a little bit of probability there, thinking there'd be a couple different ways that A could be right, but nope, it's B. Yes to the fraud claim, no to the breach of contract. Fair enough. Well played, Bar Exam.

0:41:02 Heather: Sorry. Nope. A is out. And that means that B is our correct answer. Stuff?

0:41:26 Heather: When you did such a great job immediately honing in on the issue, and already thinking really quickly, like is seeking a specific performance, what would prevent you from getting a jury trail that was like almost hitting it right right on the head, right from the get go. So you kind of nailed it terms in of your thinking like right So your reasoning, listen, props to you.

0:41:44 Thomas: Mean, yeah, I missed the specific performance thing. I should have had that. I think I started on it and then got distracted from it and didn't come back to it. But yeah, no, enough. It sounds like a rule that I need to try to remember. Remember. Too bad that there wasn't any consideration for like, well, you're already here in jury trial land. Don't make me do a separate thing. But no, alas, was

0:42:04 Heather: True, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't get a trial at all. What it would just mean is that the jury would hear the trial for his fraud painting first. And then the next step would be that the judge would hear his trial as to the breach of contract claim second.

0:42:16 Thomas: Makes sense. Right. Well, we'll have to go see who politely told me what I was missing on this one. The best on the different places. Let's go on over to Blue Sky and I'll go with Gavin at gmackie.bsky.social. Specific performance is the key here. That is an equitable remedy and there is no right to a jury trial in equity. So, answer is B. Yes for the legal claim. No to the equitable claim. Pretty much nailed it, Gavin. It sounds like, you might have read the Constitution or and or gone to law school or something.

0:42:53 Heather: Good job, Gavin.

0:42:55 Thomas: Well done. And then, of course, we've got to head on over to Reddit. You got a winner for us over there?

0:43:00 Heather: We have SleepyTimeTBear01 who says, B, the fraud claim can be tried by a jury since Ben is seeking monetary damages there, but the specific performance Ben is seeking is an equitable remedy, which a jury can't grant. So the breach of contract claim can't be tried by the jury. Was also seeing a lot of correct answers over on Reddit also and for the the right reason so reddit our

0:43:19 Thomas: Well, sure. Rub it in. Rub it in, Heather. It's great.

0:43:21 Heather: Sorry well what I'm seeing is a lot of people are maybe brushing up on their reading of the constitution lately and I feel like that's very hopeful so

0:43:29 Thomas: Well, I thought that was cheating. I didn't know you could have ever read the Constitution. I was like, spoilers. Don't, you know, I'm not. Should just guess. And, of course, we've got to go to patreon.com/law for the biggest. We can all agree the most valuable players are over there. So, winner Well, couple of them. For one, we got a bonus question from All Inclusive Gender Resort. Has the power to interpret laws, the judicial branch, the federal branch, Congress, or D, only the president and the attorney general? So they asked us a bonus questions. One, I will see. That one.

0:44:04 Heather: Like I don't want the answer to be it depends on the administration because that's not the right answer yeah

0:44:06 Thomas: I think I'm going going going going to to to to go go go go with someone I don't remember shouting out before. Always like a new winner. Charlie Kelly, bird law specialist. Maybe there's some overlap in the bird constitution that allowed them to get this right because they said, I think T3B answer is B. He's entitled to a jury trial to determine whether there was in fact fraud with regard to the painting. As to the sale of the house, specific performance is an equitable remedy so he doesn't get a jury trial excuse he were seeking money damages he would get a jury to determine the amount that the breach cost him but since he wants specific performance she can get an judicial decision on that portion here in the real world though this is never going to trial this is an easy summary judgment decision well Well, sure. But yeah, to go. Charlie Kelly, bird law specialist. It just to show sometimes bird law overlaps with human law, you in those instances, apparently contracts is one of them.

0:44:56 Heather: I'd be curious to know what their bird lawyer looks like what does he wear to court and what are his bird accessories all

0:45:02 Thomas: Jury, a murder of crows. Them the chair. No, I don't know. It doesn't know that works. Well done, everybody. Thanks for playing along. It's time to see if I can get one right. Temporary setback and a little streak there. After this, we'll get to it. Right, Heather, let's have question 60. Holy crap. The big six. Oh,

0:45:29 Heather: Well wendy owned a 50 acre farm for many years she grew corn on a 20 acre parcel located in the southwestern portion of the property in may wendy planted her annual crop corn, which she usually harvested in September. August, Wendy sold her farm to her corn grower, Jerry, for $500 ,000. The time Wendy sold his farm, the crop of corn was mature and growing well. When Wendy and Jerry entered into the sale of the farm, there was no mention of the corn crop. Late September, after Jerry took possession of the crop, Wendy contacted him and asked permission to harvest the crop. Refused to allow Wendy to re -enter the property and pick the corn. Brings suit against Jerry, seeking to re -enter the farm and remove the crop of corn that she planted. Of the following is correct regarding the respective rights of the parties? Wendy is not entitled to remove the corn crop, and thus is not entitled to reenter the farm. Wendy and Jerry each have title to the corncrop, consequently there should be an equitable division of the proceeds from the sale of the crop between both parties. Wendy Wendy is entitled to remove the corn crop, but she must pay Jerry a fee to enter the farm, thus gaining access to the corn. D. Wendy is entitle to remove corn crop and is not required to pay Jerry for entering the farm thus gaining acess to the crop.

0:46:47 Thomas: Is a real property one, which means I hate it. Uh that's step one uh first instinct is I have no earthly idea why Wendy should be entitled to this. I mean, you sell someone your property. Don't think you have to tell them every single plant growing on it and be like, oh, since I, since we didn't talk about marijuana crops over here, that means I still get them or something. You know, it's like, I'm just double checking the facts. Owned, oh well is it, okay, something tricky here. Owned a a 50 acre farm. Grew corn on a 20 acre parcel, but it says Wendy sold her farm. I think she sold the whole thing. I don't think that any of those numbers matter. Sold the whole damn thing. My first instinct is that, that like, I don'T understand why she would have access. My only other problem is this is farming. And so is there some weird old timey 1700s bullshit that there's going to to be like in the, the stuff that they decided needed to be written into the constitution explicitly. Cause they're like, this is always going to apply, you know, like quartering troops or something something, like that. I don't know. Farm stuff. Let's Is there going to be some special carve out for like, well, because she planted it when she owned it, yeah, what you sow uh is there going to be some since you grew it you get to harvest it rule I almost think the answer might be yes just because otherwise this is such a ridiculous question like there's no I don' t understand it'd be like you sell someone your property and then you're like okay but can I also get more stuff out of it later for no reason and am I entitled to do that doesn't make any sense to me unless they like specifically talked about out which they didn't so late september let's make totally sure after jerry took possession of the farm wendy contacted him and asked permission to harvest the crop of corn refused to allow wendy to re -enter the property and pick the corn so wendy brings a suit seeking to reenter the farm and remove the cropof corn that she planted okay mean when it comes to the classic buying a house thing I remember a question way back when where it's like something that's like a fixture with a house like it was about shutters or something and they were like you actually a part of the house and person just installed them and wanted to take them with them. You can't because they're actually attached to the house. Whereas I don't know, like a painting hanging on the wall, like that obviously doesn't come with the house, but there's certain stuff that's like to go with the House you're selling and other stuff that isn't. I don' t remember anything about crops. The same time, I could imagine like if you got a bunch of houseplants, it's not like... sell your house. It's like, well, I know I own those because I bought the house that has them with them. Is that different? I mean, if they're in the ground, like you're buying the literal earth that they're planted in. So let's go through the answers. Wendy is not entitled to remove the corn crop and thus is not entitled to reenter the farm. Well, that's the one I'm, leaning you toward. Wendy and Gary each have title to the corn crop and consequently there should be an equitable division of the proceeds from the sale of the crop between both parties. ,that would be a hell of a rule. I be a pretty, again, I just worry this is going to be some stupid old timey thing. I bet, you now, that it's just like, she did sort of most of the labor of it. Maybe she's entitled to some amount of it or all of it, but if I wanted to go with the idea that there's some special farm carve out nonsense, I wouldn't know exactly what it is. Wendy is entitled to remove the corn crop, but she must pay Gary Jerry a fee to enter the farm, thus gaining access to the corn. Wendy is entitled to remove the corn crop and is not play Jerry for entering the farm, thus gaining access to the crop. That's our decision. So we got not entitled to any of it, would be my first instinct. The thing about B. Okay, I think I can at least do this. I think I can eliminate B because it doesn't answer the question. Let's see. Okay. Just, just to see. She's bringing suit to reenter the farm and remove the crop. B says, okay, well, the question, the call of the question is which of the following is correct about the respective rights of the party. So I guess given the fact that like, that's how they ask it, maybe this isn't an elimination nation because I was going to say B is Wendy and Jerry each have title to the corn crop and consequently there should be an equitable division of the proceeds from the sale of the crop between both parties but it doesn't talk about like if she can re -enter the farm or not like it doesn't talking about any of that stuff at the same time by the letter of the law of the question here it just asks which of the following is correct regarding the respective rights of the the party so I frustrating because I feel like that's pretty ambiguous like if she's bringing suit about re to re - enter the farm and remove the crop I feel like it should answer that but technically speaking it just asked which is correct about the respective rights of the party so ah don't I actually based on the precise wording there I don' don't think I can firmly eliminate B just on those grounds. I was thinking I could, but that'S I a weird way of doing the question, but, I they did it that way because of this answer. It's actually the best answer. I don' t know. Because all the other ones, the first part is, is she entitled or not? She Is entitled to remove the corn or not, like, that, it just answers it first thing, and that one is It's just the odd duck there. The call, the question almost seems designed to include that one in it.

0:51:38 Thomas: I use my powers of question divination? Because that would, that would strongly lean me toward like, well, then maybe that's the one. Because like, why would you have that one? You know, why wouldn't you change it? If you're going to come up with a fake answer, why don't you have it answer the question? You would you instead change it a a certain way to be able to include it, but I don't know. I feel like I can't use just that alone to answer a question. Though I'm tempted, I I Were to bet on like, okay, if it's not a, cause a, I'm still, I still just think it's a, I mean like you bought the farm, you get what's on the farm. Like there's you buy a farm, there's gonna be some crap growing on it, I you do think there's a decent chance that there's some stupid carve out not or even stupid. There's probably some carve out based on centuries of buying farms and being like, I don't want to grow something and do the labor of it forever and then not get the harvest. But I just think you would account for that in the price. Just thinking you'd be like, all right, well, I've been working on this crop of corn for a season and I either need to keep the harvest so we'll we'll knock that off the price or if you're keeping it we'll add it to the price and you just do that like I don't think that's why I'm wondering would there even need to be a carve out here with a problem you can just easily solve through negotiation um the price so if there was going to be weird old timey carve out I I don't feel strongly enough about any of these to guess them. Was allowed to pick either a or B, C and D, think I'd slightly lean toward B, C and E. Like one of those might be right. Though I think A is the answer here but because I can't I don't have any way to know between among B C and D which one is correct I think a is my highest probability in terms of a single answer so I'm gonna go with a I'm tempted for my second chance to go with B just because it's that odd one out, but C and D seem, I think a fee is a weird thing. I think if that, I think if we're talking common law, while I think it makes sense to say, if you had a right to this thing, you can't just enter someone's property without some sort of, I know, compensation or something. I Think it's weird to say a fee. Cause it just is like a weird thing to be in common law I think I'll go second answer b I think I'll answer a it's actually it's almost exactly like last week I'm going with first answer a and then my second guess is b but I don t know I don' t know all right someone get on the interwebs and tell me who gets the corn because I don'' t know hashtag who gets this stupid corn because I don't get it. There must be some old timey thing. If you'd like to play along, go to Blue Sky, follow OpenArgs, go to reddit .com slash r slash OpenArg or go to, most importantly, patreon .com slash law. The post with the question your answer and you could be the big winner. Heather. Well, I guess until we next corn, until we crack corn. No, I got nothing. I was hoping I thought of something. As I said it, don't don't have anything.

0:54:18 Heather: We got to figure out next week what's going to happen with Wendy's weed. I mean, her corn farm.

0:54:24 Thomas: Yeah, the whole time she's just winking and saying corn. My corn.

0:54:28 Heather: I want to get my corn.

0:54:31 Thomas: It's a weird varietal of corn that doesn't look like it.

0:54:35 Heather: The happy corn. Yeah. Yeah. Had

0:54:37 Thomas: Weirdly grows in any place in any season. You just grow it. I don't. Yeah. Find out next week. Thanks for joining as always.

0:54:45 Heather: Thanks for having me.

0:54:50 Thomas: Episode is brought to you by quince you know true story I really did not used to put much thought into the clothes I wear or very honestly even what I look like for a long time it that I actually care about looking decent. Thing that has really helped is quints. I were left to my own devices, trying to figure out what I want to wear and what's going to look good. It's honestly, it's really hard for me. I struggle with that kind of thing because quints is great because I can go to quence .com and I Know Everything They Have is going to be high -end, versatile going to look good, it's has all the must -haves, like like those Mongolian cashmere crewneck sweaters I keep telling you about starting at $50. 100%, leather jackets and versatile flow knit active wear. I do have some of that active wear. It's fantastic. Wear it all the time. The best Part is all Quince items are priced 50 to 80 % less than similar brands. Do that by partnering directly with top factories. They cut out the cost of the middleman.

0:55:42 Thomas: Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices to to mention the premium fabrics and finishers. Am wearing shorts I got from Quince right now. Much have I worn them since I bought them? It's a Lot. Too much. Working work at home. Okay. Just have several pairs of shorts though. At least I'll have you know that from Quance and I wear all of them and I cycle through them. Super comfy and I like them. So indulge in affordable luxury. Go to quince .com slash OA for free shipping on your order and 365 -day returns. That's Q -U -I -N -C -E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Dot com slashoa.

0:56:21 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:56:30 Thomas: Just one thing left to do, and that's to thank our patrons, the amazing folks that make the show happen, and joining back on the show for that thank you, that shout out is Lydia Smith. How are you doing?

0:56:41 Lydia: I'm barging in. Hello. Excited to welcome new folks. Jokes what the heck man I am

0:56:45 Thomas: Well, too bad, because I'm going to do it. Yeah, I don't know. It's a power trip.

0:56:52 Lydia: Also losing my voice everybody so enjoy

0:56:54 Thomas: So I had you on to your voice. Actually, I'm just going to edit to complete silence and then just say like, well, she's not talking. But thank you to new patrons, Jenny McLaren, Stratweechick, Richard Eickhock, which no running rob shelton and jonathan ortiz thank you so much right since you've been with the company so long I will let you read the usual half of the hall of famers how about that how's that yeah not giving you health care or anything it's just just uh this and a pizza party how

0:57:01 Lydia: I'm on vocal rest oh my god I'm not editing any of that out wow thank you america it's

0:57:37 Thomas: So let's thank those Hall of Famers, those all -time greats at patreon .com slash law. The amazing folks who pledge at that five dollar level and above for at least a month and I think it's your turn to start us off but we aren't sure because the weeks blend in

0:57:50 Lydia: Do um I'm gonna do it anyway all to Gamers for Dorkness Falls is filming soon. Hype. For Darkness Falls.

0:57:59 Thomas: Gamers for dorkness falls oh

0:58:02 Lydia: Filming soon hype. Hypes is in all caps. Okay.

0:58:05 Thomas: Man you've descended from sexy voice to actually something we need to call the doctor

0:58:12 Lydia: Charlie Kelly bird law specialist. Oh my gosh. If that's real, that's It's cool.

0:58:17 Thomas: Well they also got a shout out for getting the t3b this week

0:58:21 Lydia: Congratulations, Mr. Birdlaw. Casey Kahn. Democracy cannot survive unregulated capitalism. James H. French razors give aristocrats the closest shave. Cyanitis. My son can't say truck, so he randomly shouts cuck. Oh boy. Oh, Ward. Fourth Fourth Circuit attorney reluctantly changing her font. Vehicular man's laughter's topical car references are running on empty, so the preference for the Lydia edit stays. For now. And gender are different things. ApprentICE Apprentice of adventure! Still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Nick Fish. So let's get to taking out their command one by one. A negative phenomenon. I think of Femininominon every single time I read that. The Chaperone song. People out there will get me. You're a real person. I didn't mean it like that.

0:59:23 Thomas: That oh that no I mean you're not wrong yeah

0:59:27 Lydia: Cavalry. Irregardless of anything, Ovechkin is only 12 goals from the record.

0:59:32 Thomas: Another a hattie the other day and now tickets for the march I think it's like want to say like 15th game uh san jose are like super expensive because there's a no I I mean there's there's no chance there's a chance he could break it there if he if he goes on a pretty I he's been on a crazy pace so there is a chance but the tickets are crazy I was like oh go to that but yeah it's uh so that's man he's doing it I can't believe that he's doing it this season nobody would have thought that

0:59:44 Lydia: That the projected? Oh, okay. So you're telling me there's a chance.

1:00:04 Lydia: Crazy. You got to fight for your right to ex parte. Jay Sank, all inclusive gender resort. Release the news, hoes. Look, I finally changed my name for real, legally. Woohoo. E .T., Thomas Freeman and Cajun Killa passing the mic to you and I'm going on vocal rest.

1:00:24 Thomas: Say you shouldn't have taken up that six pack a day have it in between the last time Thank you to Fraud Fishy Hates Everything, Chris Simpson. Love the extra episodes. Gun Owning Liberal, who knows that root cause mitigation and gun control are both important. Liberals own guns too. Support root cause ineffective gun control. And Gun Control Works, see Australia. Love it. This, know it hasn't, hasn't moved.

1:00:45 Lydia: Waiting for the spread though. I'm waiting for like it to take a life of

1:00:49 Thomas: Two around it have been the same for like 10 years. So I don't think it's happening.

1:00:49 Lydia: Its own. Oh, okay. Fine.

1:00:53 Thomas: This isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. Now I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Mark Schultz, The Cincinnati Kid, Bob Blah Blah's Law podcast. Philly Basement Bar is back open and isn't taking the shit lying down. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honky Tonk Bar Association. Baltic Cate, Philip Kizer. Hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. Clarissa didn't explain any of this. What is that? What is happening?

1:01:19 Lydia: Explains it all. Oh my gosh. First Chapel Roan, now Clarissa. Jeez. Melissa Joan Hart, Clarisa explains it it all. You alive in the 90s?

1:01:29 Thomas: Are those people or...

1:01:32 Lydia: Melissa Joan Hart was Sabrina the Teenage Witch, but before she was Sabrina, she was Clarissa.

1:01:36 Thomas: What dependent claws and yeah okay

1:01:38 Lydia: And Clarissa explained it all, or so we thought.

1:01:41 Thomas: I was an avid fan of Sabrina the Teenage Witch so at least we have that oh yeah I love that show TGIF baby good

1:01:45 Lydia: You? Oh, okay, cool. Yeah. TGIF. Oh, good times. Yeah and her her friend Sean Sean would climb up on a ladder up to the Clarissa, but it was spelled.

1:01:55 Thomas: What are you talking about now okay I don't care Corin Lant

1:01:58 Lydia: No, I need to I need to share this information with everybody. I was.

1:01:58 Thomas: If it's not about the cat from Sabrina the teenage witch I don'T care

1:02:05 Lydia: But I think you'll think this is funny because the actor's name was Sean and it was spelt S -E -A -N. And I was a kid and I was like, seen what kind of a name is seen?

1:02:07 Thomas: Salem I so I did the same thing about Sean Connery because when I first was learning to read I remember I

1:02:20 Lydia: Yours is like a much more cultured actor than mine.

1:02:22 Thomas: Knew the not really I knew that that Sean Connory I knew that actor existed and then I was like well who does he have a brother it's scene ConnerY I'll never forget that that was in a video rental store so that's 4 000 years ago and somehow I'm not even 40 but it feels like I'm a thousand anyway Corinne Lan, a string of unpronounceable characters milo mead song is fighting petty tyrants malika chandler malcolm the dragon the precious variant big easy blasphemy RhondaTheDork.com Fred R Groothuis Chris, Chris Waltrip, ClassicLibtard, and Mitchell. Thank you so much, top patrons. You're the best. I'm so glad Lydia comes here for this segment. I don't know if anyone listens to it, but at least I'm sure a few people.

1:02:34 Lydia: Seen Connery. Aw, that's cute. Yeah, we have a good time.

1:03:14 Thomas: Yeah, this is just for us. I don'T know.

1:03:16 Lydia: It's like a relationship bonding exercise.

1:03:19 Thomas: We don't actually get any time to ourselves, so this is actually entirely it. This is our, yep.

1:03:22 Lydia: It's our date night.

1:03:27 Thomas: This was our anniversary date. Yeah, it's actually, it'S what I got you.

1:03:29 Lydia: And you are all invited.

1:03:32 Thomas: All right. Well, that was a great interview. I'm still inspired from Amanda Lippman and looking forward to Rapid Response Friday. So we'll see everyone then.

1:03:40 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

1:03:58 Thomas: Crack corn. And I do care. I

1:04:01 Amanda: Was the only one that shit her pants but he says is insane, but that's because he's literally insane. Like,

1:04:08 Lydia: Mr. Birdlaw.

1:04:09 Thomas: With lawyers. This